The Uncompromised Beauty of L.A. Noire

I’ve complained before about how AAA games have become so homogenized that every new title feels the same and I occasionally and tragically lose interest in one of my most treasured pastimes. However, everyone’s a critic and there are plenty of people online who complain what Games are doing wrong; I try to dedicate this blog to the more positive feelings I have about games and uplift the titles that stand out as beacons of awesomeness.

To that end, today I want to talk about L.A. Noire. It was developed by independent Australian studio Team Bondi, but published and partially worked on by AAA behemoth Rockstar Games. I consider that by definition a AAA title, especially considering the expensive and cutting edge technology that went into it.

However, unlike many AAA titles, this game exhibited an astonishing amount of innovation and unique character that one wouldn’t really expect from such a high profile release. Noire surprised me right from the start by how much it defied all my expectations based on the genre and publisher. I mean Rockstar’s influence can be clearly seen in many aspects, this is a game that at a glance looks like a Grand Theft Auto clone. But that cursory evaluation couldn’t be further from the truth.

Far Cry 4: Pointlessness is the Point

I’ve long held the belief that the Far Cry games generally have a lot more going on than the casual player or critic may notice or give it credit for. They don’t have any problem getting good review scores, but they still commonly receive complaints about things that were perceived as flaws but were more likely intentional choices because people miss the point, possibly due to not being used to games asking them to think on a more philosophical level than “Nazis should be shot in the face”.

“I hate that all these guard posts respawn and that the hostility is so pointlessly endless,” cries the person playing Far Cry 2, not seeing that these aspects of the game were supposed to help illustrate the senseless futility of war and violence. “Jason is an unlikeable douche and it doesn’t make sense that he can do all this crazy shit,” complains the Far Cry 3 player who missed the themes of perspective and insanity as well as the not-so-subtle metacommentary on the gaming industry as a whole.

While I don’t want to dwell too much on this debate, I will concede that it’s possible that these games didn’t effectively present their messages effectively enough if so many people didn’t catch them without being told, but I still personally believe that we, both consumers and critics alike, need to start demanding more from games and digging deeper anyway or the industry will never have any reason to produce anything more profound than mere entertainment.

That said, I’m pretty sure Far Cry 4 is continuing the tradition of saying a lot of interesting things that most people won’t notice. In fact, this time around even I was fooled at first. Thats right, me, the guy who squeezes deeper meaning out of basically everything thought that this game might not have any deeper meaning to squeeze out.

Quick Thoughts: Dark Souls II Hasn’t Learned Anything

I’ve ranted before about the ways in which Dark Souls II fails compared to its predecessors, but all aesthetic choices aside the one thing I still can’t stand about this game is the seeming lack of understanding of what makes difficulty engaging. In the first Dark Souls and Demon’s Souls, difficulty was kind of a byproduct of very tight mechanical design. They were hard games, but the difficulty didn’t feel like the point of the game. Mastery of the mechanics and learning to play carefully was intrinsically rewarding, so even when you got stuck, when you persevered you felt awesome and didn’t often feel like the game was being unfair.

That’s not to say that Dark Souls II doesn’t encourage you to master its systems, too, but that game uses difficulty almost as a gimmick. From the very start it pokes fun at how many times you’ll probably die. The town square has a statue that records how many total deaths the player population has racked up. And most egregiously, the difficulty isn’t really all that interesting. The combat is very similar to Dark Souls in that it’s designed for one-on-one combat, but instead of making the enemies more dynamic or challenging themselves they just throw more of them at you to achieve more “difficult” situations. There were mobs to deal with in the other games, too, but typically you could lure them out in singles or pairs. The number of instances in which you must deal with multiple enemies in Dark Souls II is significantly higher.

So in other words the difficulty comes primarily from the fact that mobs are hard to deal with in combat designed for dueling. And in many cases this doesn’t even make it harder so much as more irritating or exhausting. It just feels like a slog, there’s nothing compelling about the encounters.

These views are not unique to me, of course. Many a critic and player alike have complained about this very problem. A vast majority of people, in all fairness, really enjoyed this game and can probably defend any misgivings I have about it. And that’s wonderful, I’m not one to denounce the value others find in a creative work, even if I don’t agree with them. But my point is there has been plenty of negative noise against this game, too.

So in comes the re-release, which will also be available on the new-gen consoles. And what things have they added to the game? Why, it’s more enemies!

Look, it’s not a bad game. I’d still rather play Dark Souls II than a lot of the AAA nonsense out there at the moment. But this update shows a disturbing lack of understanding of what has made this series so fiercely loved by fans. These extra enemy placements were considered by the developers to be an improvement; they wouldn’t have been added otherwise. But this just exemplifies my point that while this may make some areas more difficult than before, it won’t make them more interesting or make the experiences more meaningful.

I try not to be too negative on this blog. It’s too easy to be a harsh critic. I try to celebrate the things I love about games and discuss things about design that I find interesting or important to gaming. I aim to focus on optimism and enjoyment rather than vitriol. But that’s exactly why things like this disappoint me. I love the Souls series. I’ve had some truly remarkable experiences with them. It’s just frustrating when a really good run has a totally avoidable misstep like this.

However! While not really a Souls game, I feel like Bloodborne is at least in the same family, and I have nothing but positive anticipation for how that title turns out. I suppose we shall see in a matter of weeks.

The point is, you are alive when they start to eat you.

Quick Thoughts: Dark Souls Ruined Other Games For Me

I feel it’s been long enough since playing it that I can talk about Dark Souls some more without making this blog the Dark Souls blog.

I think Dark Souls has ruined most games for me. There’s something so irresistibly engaging about it. It’s difficult but fair, has fantastic art direction and music, and intricate combat controls that require skill and mastery. It’s just a really well designed game, despite some glaring, horrible flaws, and it’s so good that I forgive those glaring, horrible flaws and praise the game anyway.

But after an experience like Dark Souls, it’s hard not to feel a bit cheated by most other mainstream games. There’s a lot about Assassin’s Creed 4 that I really like, but the ridiculously cluttered HUD and dull combat make me wish for Dark Souls swordplay. Grand Theft Auto 5 is a blast, but the character actions feel so stiff and unnatural compared to the slower, fluid, responsive movements of Dark Souls.

And that’s not to say Dark Souls is the best game ever or anything. But I do think it opened my eyes to just how much mainstream gaming has to step it up. I knew it did already, but my post-Dark Souls worldview had so much more contrast.

So that got me thinking, when have I felt like this in the past? At first I assumed that the rose tint of hindsight would make my past gaming experiences seem so much more profound than they really were, but I was surprised to discover that I do remember feeling like this before when I really think about it.

Most recently before Dark Souls was probably Far Cry 3. I loved the hell out of Far Cry 2, but the third installment really nailed what I felt a first-person shooter should be. Responsive controls, good sound design, weapons you can practically feel as you fire them, very nice character animations (limb animations? You know what I mean), and most importantly surprisingly nuanced combat; it wasn’t just point and shoot, you had a variety of takedowns and close quarters options as well, and I have yet to have more fun with first-person stealth, at least not since the original Thief.

After playing Far Cry 3, I just wanted to play it some more. I didn’t have a lot of motivation to start other games because they all failed to stimulate me as effectively. And as someone who normally doesn’t even like shooters that much, that’s impressive to me.

Further back in my gaming life was Shadow of the Colossus. I loved the idea of a game comprised almost entirely of boss fights and empty space, but those boss fights were also tense climbing puzzles that felt like a real struggle and that empty space was goddamn gorgeous and serene. This game remains one of my favorites, but at the time I was so frustrated that more games didn’t try to do something weird and awesome like this. We had a lot of samey FPSs and some decent JRPGs, but it was all so safe. Nothing so haunting and beautiful and unique as SotC.

But this sort of thing happened way back in my youth, too. On the SNES, after I played Final Fantasy 4, I found that a lot of other games seemed to lack depth and emotion by comparison. Except, of course, for Final Fantasy 6, which fucking nailed it. I was enthralled by those games, spending entire nights unraveling the lunatic stories and grinding for the best spells and gear. Gameplay-wise they were nothing new, but it was the first time I had experienced complicated stories with memorable characters in games before. And while they may seem kind of quaint today, they completely changed the way I thought about games and the kinds of things they could accomplish.

So what does all that mean? I obviously got over it, because after each example I continued on with a life rich in video games. And along the way I found a lot of really amazing experiences. ICO, Oddworld, Journey (Journey be praised), Fire Emblem: Awakening, Portal, Brothers the list goes on. A worthwhile experience always comes along again eventually.

But for now I still suffer the sense that too many games I’m playing are kind of bland and lazily designed, and a big part of that is because of games like Dark Souls. I’m tired of cluttered HUDs. I’m tired of minimaps. I’m tired of cinematic, visually impressive character movements that occur not from skill but from pressing the “Square” button at the right time. I’m tired of pointless sidequests. I’m tired of pointless main quests. I’m tired of binary morality systems. I’m tired of cutscenes that interrupt gameplay rather than enhance it.

I do want to see more mechanics that demand mastery and skill. I want to see more expertly written scripts. I want to see more focus on art direction and less focus on raw graphics. I want to see more original titles and fewer sequels and franchises and remakes. I want to be challenged intellectually by more games. I want to see technical limitations yield creative use of resources, not buggy, incomplete looking games. I want to see unique gameplay scenarios. I want to feel excited and full of wonder by a gaming experience again.

I have no doubt these things will come with time. Games are experiencing a sort of growing pains, I think, and eventually the brilliant releases will be spaced by much less time. Until then, I can always just play Dark Souls again in the downtime.

The point is, you are alive when they start to eat you.

My Journey Into the Skinner Box (With Dinosaurs)

As I’m sure you can tell by the sort of rambling I do on this blog, I hold video games in pretty high esteem. What I haven’t spoken too much about are games and design practices that I don’t like. A big part of this is because I feel like there’s more merit in positivity than using negativity for easy entertainment.

That said, it’s important to recognize the flaws in the gaming industry. Some practices are downright manipulative and in some cases evil. But while I could discuss theoretics with you forever, I feel it would be shamefully less thorough and eloquent than professionals could offer, like this excellent talk by Jonathan Blow.

Anything I would say wouldn’t be all that unique, and even what was wouldn’t be crafted as concretely. What I can offer, however, is a personal experience diving into manipulative game design despite knowing better. “I won’t get trapped,” I arrogantly said to myself, “if I know the game is trying to manipulate me its tricks won’t work, and I can just kind of have fun for a little bit and come out unscathed! Have at ye!”

Why People Like Metal Gear Solid

What is it about the Metal Gear Solid series? The fans are loyal to almost religious levels, and even critics love to wax nostalgic about how the first game was the pinnacle of gaming on the first PlayStation console. But why is that? It’s hardly even a game, you spend more time watching cutscenes of people talking than you do actually playing anything, and the plot is so extravagant and incomprehensible that it hardly even seems worth it anyway.

I have no idea what’s going on.

Well, as it so happens, I’ve played the series to death, and having studied it I’ve decided that it is, albeit unwittingly, an excellent example of a) difficult mechanics done correctly that most of the industry fucks up as well as b) everything that’s wrong with modern games. It’s a beautiful contradiction, an unlikely dichotomy that I find irresistibly interesting. And so, with my Sword of Critical Thinking in hand, let’s slash these ridiculous games up and serve it with fries.

Spec Ops: The Line (Part 2)

Last time, I set up the basic elements and setting for the game. This game basically has two main themes: PTSD and some pretty scathing commentary on modern gaming and how we experience them. Today we’re going to dive in to that first theme with sharp objects and pick this game apart to find out what makes it work. I’ll warn you now, I won’t be cleaning up the mess afterwards. Additionally, there will be some major spoilers in this writing, so if you still haven’t played this game and you would like to experience it properly, don’t read this yet. But, you know, do read it eventually, to make me feel good.

Next time we’ll get into the awesome fourth-wall-breaking aspects of this game and how the mechanics make you feel horrible about yourself, how it makes you feel bad about things it told you to do, how it makes you confront the darkness and fear that resides inside you that normally stays hidden, and also how it utterly crucifies the very genre it operates under and the state of gaming industry in general. Fun times!